Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #11653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-10 21:30 +0200
too many acronyms [was: Testing Discourse for Debian] Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-11 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-12 00:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-14 15:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 01:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 08:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 03:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 21:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2020-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 02:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 03:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marcin Kulisz <kula@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 09:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 09:40 +0200
tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 18:50 +0200
[Summary] Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-14 22:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 23:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 00:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 01:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 17:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-04-16 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 14:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 19:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-17 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-06-17 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-18 02:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-16 10:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 14:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 18:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 19:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 21:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-15 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 00:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 00:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 11:20 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 12:00 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 12:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 13:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 16:10 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 14:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 15:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 17:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 17:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-14 00:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 10:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 14:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 12:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
"From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-03 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-05-04 13:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-05-04 13:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 02:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> - 2020-04-14 01:10 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Abhijith PA <abhijith@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-17 10:00 +0200
alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 19:00 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-20 08:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:10 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-21 01:50 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-21 17:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-23 17:20 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> - 2020-04-24 18:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-14 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) |
| Message-ID | <zVqPE-2Pe-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11733 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Apr 14, 2020, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:31:23PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > The trust system gives me no trust at all. It is very closely bound to > > > participation over the web interface, monitors the reading frequency and time > > > spent on reading by users. > > [1] https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-does-post-tracking-work-in-discourse/115790 > > thanks for pointing this out, Sean. This makes even using discourse > inaccepable to me, sorry. > > I also wonder where we will store this private data of our users, how > we will protect it and how users can request their data to be deleted. The only correct answer is /dev/null. -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) |
| Message-ID | <zVwV4-6rb-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11733 |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 08:22:22AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:31:23PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > The trust system gives me no trust at all. It is very closely bound to > > > participation over the web interface, monitors the reading frequency and time > > > spent on reading by users. > > [1] https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-does-post-tracking-work-in-discourse/115790 > > thanks for pointing this out, Sean. This makes even using discourse > inaccepable to me, sorry. Same for me. The more I look into Discourse the more horrible I find it. Several things that some people consider "advantages" of Discourse over mailinglists are no-gos from my point of view: - The whole "distributed moderation" concept that appears to be one of the main points why people even consider Discourse over email is based on user-tracking and that is an absolute no-go for me. - Giving users the ability to edit other people's posts is an absolute no-go for me. If one accepts moderation at all, the most a moderator should IMHO be able to do is to reject a message. Allowing people to modify messages other people have written is an invitation to abuse. - Giving random people moderator powers based on an automatically assigned "trust" value created by a completely <censored> algorithm is in my view such a horrible idea that I cannot even imagine how somebody could find anything positive in that. - To me the whole system appears to be designed to make users waste as much time as possible on the web interface (gamification elements and "trust" levels). This is something that I would expect from some commercially-operated webforums where such tactics appear to be rather common, but not from a system to be used by Debian developers trying to collaborate on a technical project. - The system is effectively unusable offline. Those functions that are listed by the Discourse proposers as the big advantages of Discourse over email are not available for offline use at all, and the email interface doesn't even seem to handle basic requirements such as proper quoting, which makes it IMHO unsuitable for any practical use. And yes, contrary to what some of the people proposing a web-based system over email lists seem to think: there is quite a number of people who handle their list email largely in offline situations such as when being on the train to and from work for several hours a day. As a personal note: compared to my email client I find the discourse web interface very unwieldly and impractical (like most web forums). This is of course a matter of taste and personal preferences, but exactly that is an important point. With mailinglists everybody can use a client that suits one's personal preferences, while web-based systems inevitably force a particular user interface onto every user. This one interface naturally cannot fit everbody's personal preferences and therefore makes the task of following and taking part in discussions actually harder for a significant number of people compared to performing the same tasks on a mailinglist. Regards, Karsten -- Ich widerspreche hiermit ausdrücklich der Nutzung sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 22:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVAvE-eM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11750 |
The thread about Discourse is getting too long (both in user and project lists) and a lot of people's reactions start to repeat. So I just wanted to summarize so far everything that people have stated so far in a concise manner, and I invite everyone to complete this pros/cons list. (items are in no particular order) pros: ===== - easier moderation (for moderators) - attracts people who are not comfortable with email - easier +1 for polls - easier to split threads - search function returns relevant results - ability to close threads - auto-summarize feature - supposed to attract younger audience cons: ===== usability: ---------- - does not work offline - does not work without graphical environment - does not really work outside of the web browser - does not work work without javascript - Not 100% GPL - some javascript scripts loaded into users browser are not free - moderation abilities exclusively tied to web interface - makes it harder to use for people with limited abilities - makes it harder to use on weak or non-mainstream hardware that can't run modern web-browser - email integration is second-class, including poor support for quoting - requires login - hard to enter long texts due to imperfect web interface - achievements/badges/other gamification of the process - increased context switching (instead of all mail from many projects in one inbox need to visit multiple different websites and your email mailbox anyway) - trust levels are revoked if you don't use web interface often enough to maintain current trust level - learning curve exists and so it forces existing users to learn new tool privacy: -------- - tracks user activity (including time spent on each page/topic) - currently no way to request removal of collected user's data - "trust levels" are earned by spending time on the website and increasing post counts allow gaining moderation capabilities - distributed moderation based on trust levels (amplified by points below) - moderation possibilities allow editing messages of others - 1-to-1 messages are not really private (with email it is direct mta-to-mta vs discourse still is a middleman) - moderation audit log is supposed to be present by I have not found it. - "ease of moderation" is not received positively by end users why yet another tool/service? ----------------------------- - yet another service splits the community - there is already http://forums.debian.net - there is already https://reddit.com/r/debian - similar efforts have failed int the past due to lack of interest to web browser services (shapado.debian.net / ask.debian.net) I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone should make their own. -- Ihor Antonov https://useplaintext.email
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVBBo-X5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11752 |
>>>>> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> writes:
Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone
Ihor> should make their own.
I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you
it has gotten long.
A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look
at the summary and say that yes, that looks good.
I strongly suspect you've missed there.
I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary than
would be ideal.
Also, for each item, you put it in one category, even when some people
think it is a pro and some people think it is a con.
So, I think that the approach you're going for--summarize the discussion
and see where we stand--is good,
it would be valuable to try and paint things in a much less biased way
so that:
* People who said things look at your summary and say "that's what I
said"
* People who disagree with those things look at your summary and say
"yep, my disagreement is represented."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 00:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVCe6-1q9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11754 |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote: > > >>>>> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> writes: > > > > Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone > Ihor> should make their own. > > I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you > it has gotten long. > > A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look > at the summary and say that yes, that looks good. > > I strongly suspect you've missed there. > I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary than > would be ideal. <snip> Hi Sam, It would probably be more helpful to make concrete content suggestions than to simply state that you don't think he did a good job of summarizing. I think Ihor's summary very helpful, and he invited comments if people disagree or think he missed something. He obviously spent a lot of time reading the threads, and I think your comment came off a lot more negatively than you intended. -- Eldon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 01:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVCH8-1Ac-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11754 |
On April 14, 2020 9:42:33 PM UTC, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote: >>>>>> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> writes: > > > > Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone > Ihor> should make their own. > >I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with >you >it has gotten long. > >A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look >at the summary and say that yes, that looks good. > >I strongly suspect you've missed there. >I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary >than >would be ideal. > >Also, for each item, you put it in one category, even when some people >think it is a pro and some people think it is a con. > > >So, I think that the approach you're going for--summarize the >discussion >and see where we stand--is good, >it would be valuable to try and paint things in a much less biased way >so that: > >* People who said things look at your summary and say "that's what I > said" > >* People who disagree with those things look at your summary and say > "yep, my disagreement is represented." Sam, I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why another service section at the end. Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian" camp and I see my concerns represented. I also see several items where I agree it's a claimed advantage, but I don't think it really is. No summary is perfect. I think this one is pretty good (even the parts I disagree with - it does summarize the discussion). Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 17:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWeMp-8M-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11761 |
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> Sam,
Scott> I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why
Scott> another service section at the end.
Scott> Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian"
Scott> camp and I see my concerns represented. I also see several
Scott> items where I agree it's a claimed advantage, but I don't
Scott> think it really is.
It does appear that the summary represented the consensus of the group
far better than I thought it did.
Sometimes especially when you are reading the discussion a certain way
it's hard to tell whether you are in the rough or whether the summary
is in the rough.
I spoke up, a couple people said I missed the mark.
If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that several
more people would have chimed in at that point.
So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on
this one.
Since then, Neil has addressed some of the concerns raised, several
people have talked about the importance of making it easy to try new
things (and avoiding hostility), and people have talked about ways to
make discourse available as something that more limited people can try
than Neil's long-term hopes.
So, I think the discussion stands in a somewhat different place than it
did when I challenged the summary.
However, I don't have a good enough feel for it to describe where that
place is.
Personally, I hope Neil does conclude that Discourse is worth setting up
as a service and that teams and those facilitating discussions within
the project have it available as an option that they can choose to use
when it makes sense.
--Sam
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWfp8-Bp-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11813 |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I spoke up, a couple people said I missed the mark. > If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that several > more people would have chimed in at that point. > So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on > this one. Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern. I thought the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros. I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative feedback is voiced. I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool. Ross (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the technology)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 20:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWhqW-1NM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11814 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> wrote: > Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern. I thought > the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros. > > I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative > feedback is voiced. I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm > perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool. > > Ross > > (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the technology) > Second and 👍 to that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWhAB-1R9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11815 |
On 16.04.20 20:18, Olek Wojnar wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ross Vandegrift > <rvandegrift@debian.org <mailto:rvandegrift@debian.org>> wrote: > > Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern. I thought > the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros. > > I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative > feedback is voiced. I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm > perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool. > > Ross > > (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the > technology) > > > Second and 👍 to that! Could refrain from "third", but had to 👍 <trolling>Can we gpg-sign "👍"s on discord?</trolling>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWkoN-3Dm-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11814 |
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > I spoke up, a couple people said I missed the mark. > > If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that several > > more people would have chimed in at that point. > > So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on > > this one. Le Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:47:53AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift a écrit : > > Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern. I thought > the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros. +1 I felt that the effort to summarise the pros was not as strong as for the cons. For insance: "easier moderation (for moderators)." For me, this sounds like the problem to solve is to save the time of the moderators. However (and I am not going to rehearse the arguments here), the Discourse platform proposes an entirely different moderation approach. "easier +1 for polls". It is not just for polls and it is a +1 system that our mailing list system does not feature at all. It is not just easier. "attract younger audience". It is not about age. It is about all people who are turned off by mailing lists, regardless when they were born. I also felt that the vocabulary was biased, for instance with "supposed to …" in the pros or "forces existing users to …" in the cons. Altogether, the big missing point is the cons of mailing lists, which are why we are intrested in testing Discourse. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-19 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zXkPM-d1-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11814 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Ross, thank you very much for voicing this. I've been struggling with myself to find the time and energy to reply and support Neal's effort to make Discourse an option for Debian, and also support Sam's concerns regarding the summary. My lack of computer time lately plus the amount of negative feedback raised against trying Discoure have been my main demotivators. Fortunately, Russ helped me reevaluate my decision and here I am replying. > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I spoke up, a couple people said I missed the mark. > > If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that > > several more people would have chimed in at that point. > > So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in > > the rough on this one. > > Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern. > I thought the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the > pros. Same here. > I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only > negative feedback is voiced. I think Neil's experiment is a > good idea and I'm perplexed by the strong reactions to merely > testing out a tool. Fully agreed. I can't but wonder how many contributions are being silenced or discarded for similar reasons. > (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the > technology) 👍 Cheers! Alex -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Debian Developer 🍥 log.alexm.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVLr3-7dp-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11752 |
I'm just going to correct things that are factually incorrect here, rather than label them as pros/cons. I feel a number of things you have put in the cons column are advantages. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote: > - Not 100% GPL - some javascript scripts loaded into users browser are not > free Could you please let me know which scripts these are? > - makes it harder to use for people with limited abilities An example here would be useful. > - requires login This is incorrect. Anonymous reading and posting is possible. > - achievements/badges/other gamification of the process > - trust levels are revoked if you don't use web interface often enough to > maintain current trust level These are based on the default configuration and can be changed to suit Debian's needs > - currently no way to request removal of collected user's data This is incorrect. Neil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVOoV-yM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11765 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 2020-04-15 at 04:05, Neil McGovern wrote: > I'm just going to correct things that are factually incorrect here, > rather than label them as pros/cons. I feel a number of things you > have put in the cons column are advantages. I am surprised. Reviewing Ihor's post after Sam's response, with the idea of objectivity and the suggestion that people might disagree about which are pros and which are cons in my mind, I found it hard to see how nearly any of the listed cons were anything which someone (assuming non-malicious, which should go without saying) could possibly classify as a pro; reviewing it again, now, still the only ones I can see as perhaps qualifying from some perspectives are maybe a couple of the points from the "privacy" sub-category. Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given "cons" category which you see as positives? (I also don't see how any of the listed pros could possibly be seen as a con, for what that's worth.) > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote: >> - achievements/badges/other gamification of the process >> - trust levels are revoked if you don't use web interface often >> enough to maintain current trust level > > These are based on the default configuration and can be changed to > suit Debian's needs I'm glad to learn that, at least. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 13:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVOIh-FE-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11771 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given > "cons" category which you see as positives? > I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits. The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to help with the way categories are organised, for example. If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and innovate or do new things unless it is either: * 100% optional for people, or * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where this is coming from. Neil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 14:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVP1D-11z-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11773 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: [...] > If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with > my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and > innovate or do new things unless it is either: > * 100% optional for people, or > * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things Oh, now. This wasn't necessary. > Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where > this is coming from. Still not helpful. Cheers -- t > > > Neil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 19:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVUkF-47D-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11774 |
<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: >> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with >> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and >> innovate or do new things unless it is either: >> * 100% optional for people, or >> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things > Oh, now. This wasn't necessary. I think it was. The amount of hostility with which Neil is being met for even trying something new is kind of staggering, and if I were him, I would be equally upset. It's way easier to say no than to try to build something new. I wish people would take that into account and try to engage with what someone is attempting to accomplish and respect the effort that they're putting into trying to make Debian better, even if they don't think this effort will succeed. For example, a whole lot of people have piled on to declare things that they consider misfeatures in Discourse to be "completely unacceptable" or other wording of that type, and very few of those people have asked the obvious question of whether these are things we could simply turn off, and what would be lost by doing so. It's easy for the negativity to feel highly asymmetric, and to quickly reach the conclusion that Debian is not a useful environment for attempting to accomplish anything new because it's so much easier for people to block things than it is for people to build new things. A lot of strenuous objections are equally effective when phrased as questions about capabilities and configuration options, and are much easier and less stressful to engage with in that form. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVWcN-5hl-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11795 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > >> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with > >> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and > >> innovate or do new things unless it is either: > >> * 100% optional for people, or > >> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things > > > Oh, now. This wasn't necessary. > > I think it was. The amount of hostility with which Neil is being met for > even trying something new is kind of staggering, and if I were him, I > would be equally upset. Hello Russ, I don't agree with your assessment that there has been hostility against Neil. There has been criticism - sometimes strongly worded criticism that one might perhaps call hostility - against replacing our mailinglists by something that quite a number of people in this thread consider worse than the existing situation. Nothing of that has been any form of hostility against Neil - you are IMHO assuming an ad-hominem where there is none. > It's way easier to say no than to try to build something new. Agreed. > I wish people would take that into account and try to engage with what > someone is attempting to accomplish and respect the effort that they're > putting into trying to make Debian better, even if they don't think this > effort will succeed. I (and I suppose everybody else in this thread) very much respect Neil's efforts to make Debian better, people just don't agree with the notion that replacing mailinglists by Discourse does make Debian better, instead quite a number of people in this thread are convinced that it would make the situation worse instead, and that is why emotions are going high. Implementing Discourse as an official Debian service with the aim of replacing mailinglists isn't just adding something new, it inevitebly means taking something away that many DDs consider essential. This makes the situation about running Discourse fundamentally different from e.g. running forums.debian.net. Effectively there are three possible outcomes of introducing Discourse as an official Debian service to handle the discussions that we currently have on mailinglists: - Mailinglists are shut down and everybody is forced to use Discourse. This will leave us with a (I suppose relatively large) number of angry and demotivated developers. - Mailinglists and Discourse are run in parallel covering the same topics. This would end up in a "split-brain" situation where the people preferring mailinglists stay among themselves on the mailinglists and the people preferring Discourse stay among themselves on Discourse. I suppose we all agree that such a "split-brain" situation surely wouldn't make things better for the project. - Everybody thinks that Discourse is the best thing to have and happily voluntarily moves from the existing mailinglists to Discourse at once. Looking at the current discussion I am rather sure that the last point is not what would happen, and each of the other two possible outcomes would make the situation worse compared to where we are now. Regards, Karsten -- Ich widerspreche hiermit ausdrücklich der Nutzung sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVWPv-5K8-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11807 |
Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> writes: > I don't agree with your assessment that there has been hostility against > Neil. There has been criticism - sometimes strongly worded criticism > that one might perhaps call hostility - against replacing our > mailinglists by something that quite a number of people in this thread > consider worse than the existing situation. Nothing of that has been > any form of hostility against Neil - you are IMHO assuming an ad-hominem > where there is none. This paragraph, through no intention of yours, is an excellent example to me of why Debian is such a difficult project to participate in, and why it's so hard to remain motivated to contribute rather than moving to another community that isn't as hostile. Hostility and ad hominem are not synonyms. Just because people are not attacking Neil personally doesn't mean people are not being hostile. An environment in which people express negativity at nearly every proposed change, even without personally insulting someone, is still deeply unpleasant to be in. My impression is that people are reacting out of fear and anger because somehow what Neil is doing feels very threatening. I have some empathy for that, but the way that it's playing out is awful for our community and is exactly the sort of thing that makes it less likely people will continue to participate in the project. People are acting like the shutdown of every mailing list they care about is imminent and they have to express their objections as strongly as possible to protest something that's about to happen. This isn't remotely how any of this works, and it makes productive discussion nearly impossible. It is also deeply discouraging to anyone who might ever want to attempt to change something in Debian. > I (and I suppose everybody else in this thread) very much respect > Neil's efforts to make Debian better, I believe that you *want* to respect his efforts, and that you may internally be feeling respect. However, what people have done on this thread is not respect. Actions speak louder than words. Saying that you respect his efforts is not the same thing as respecting his efforts. Respecting his efforts involves doing things like pausing, realizing that sending a negative reply to a mailing list is much easier than the work he's putting in, and deciding to take additional time to rephrase assertions as questions and rephrase objections as requests. Respecting his efforts means using phrasing like "here are the things that I think I would miss from email" or "hm, these features seem contrary to our project goals; can we disable them?" or "interaction without a web browser is very important to me; what improvements to the email interface can we realistically make to make that interaction style work?" In other words, respect looks like collaboration and partnership. How can I make this idea better? How can I improve this proposal so that it's something that I would like? Or if I truly think that's impossible, how can I listen very deeply and carefully to the goals underlying the proposal, and what alternatives can I imagine that meet those goals as well as mine? Or, if that's impossible, and you believe all movement in this direction will definitely be bad for Debian (and wow, that's a strong stance that should require *substantial* justification), it's okay to be confident there will be a future opportunity to make a *decision* rather than a *test* (which is what's going on right now), and be silent until then. Or, if you must, ask a question like "what will the decision process look like before we create a parallel forum for a mailing list, and how can I be involved in that decision?" Respect also means recognizing that some decisions may not affect you and thus may not be about you. Perhaps Discourse won't be a good solution for debian-project or debian-vote as Neil was hoping, but perhaps it's the *perfect* solution for some packaging team of which you are not even a part, and whose mailing list you never interact with. Maybe they'll move to Discourse and you'll *never notice*, because it doesn't concern you, and they'll be very happy. Drowning the project in negativity right now could prevent that sort of discovery from happening. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-17 18:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <AiIX7-3ei-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11809 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi,
I'm sorry to bring up this again, but I'm pretty sure it's useful ;)
As in, I send the following reply to Russ (in private) and he replied
in private and we agreed to re-post our conversation to this list. So here
we go:
(below the quote is what I've sent to Russ two weeks ago. He'll re-post his
reply here soon.)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 01:23:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I (and I suppose everybody else in this thread) very much respect
> > Neil's efforts to make Debian better,
> I believe that you *want* to respect his efforts, and that you may
> internally be feeling respect. However, what people have done on this
> thread is not respect. Actions speak louder than words. Saying that you
> respect his efforts is not the same thing as respecting his efforts.
[...]
today i'm not sure whether it's worth rehashing this on the list (and which part
to quote also, but thats a minor detail), so I'll just reply here to you now.
a.) I can see how my reply (replies?) in this thread were negative like this
and for all the good reasons explained by you I'm sorry about that.
b.) and at the same time I don't know how else to respond to such proposals,
because if I don't speak up, silence can and will be seen as consent. And
I've seen too many test ballons which became real thing later, so if
someone comes and says 'I would like to move Debian communication to
slack' (or discourse or facebook or foo) i'm not sure "I wont use that"
is really bad. Also, if someone has 'crazy ideas' (not Neil here) *and*
shares them with hundreds of people, I don't see why the burden of work
(explaining in detail why those ideas are not good...) is on the side of
people who would like to stay with things how they are.
So, IOW, yes, I can see how my comment 'I think discourse sux and I wont use it'
is not improving the situation, but then I do think that suggesting discourse
already worsened the situation and it's not my job to fix problems introduced
by someone else, while I should at least be able to point this out.
If you could help me with an idea here I would really appreciate it.
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number
of people to continue making enormous amounts of money... It is the sufferings
of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few... You say you love your
children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of
their very eyes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web